Byers v Frith (No 2) [2017] NSWDC 165

Procedural Posture

Civil Mercantile Claim Arising From Aircraft Accident Alleging Breach of Implied Statutory Warranties, Consumer Guarantees and Unsafe Goods Requirements / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

1. 1 ['What caused the undercarriage to deploy during the water landing and damage the aircraft.' 'Whether the undercarriage locking mechanism using an elasticised cord was defective or unsafe.' 'Whether the aircraft was fit for purpose, of merchantable quality and of acceptable quality under the Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld) and the Australian Consumer Law.' 'Whether Mr Hutchinson or Vision In Action Pty Ltd were liable as a manufacturer under the Australian Consumer Law.' 'Whether s 140 of the Australian Consumer Law applied to the alleged destruction of the aircraft by the undercarriage system.' 'If liability were established, whether damages would be the purchase price less salvage value or repair costs, and how foreign currency payments should be treated.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove that any defect in the undercarriage locking mechanism caused the accident. The Court found no evidentiary basis that the restraining cord had a propensity to slip off the lever, be knocked off during a tactual check, or be placed on the rounded end of the lever in the manner suggested. The evidence of Mr Byers and Mr Lane about repeated checks was not accepted. The cause of the undercarriage deployment and damage was pilot error in failing to affix the restraining cord and failing to check its correct position, not any defect in the aircraft. Accordingly, no breach of fitness for purpose, merchantable quality, acceptable quality, or s 140 of the Australian...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants.

Orders

• ['Judgment for the defendants.' "Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs."]